I’m being approached all the time by scientist having great difficulty getting their Fukushima Daiichi-related reports published because of industrial pressure -Gundersen (VIDEO)

Published: July 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
57 comments


Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi: What is the Link?
CCTV’s Margaret Harrington
June 27, 2012

At ~27:00 in

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates: Of course, now at Fukushima we are not throwing scientists in jail, but I’m being approached all the time by scientist who are having great difficulty getting their reports published because of industrial pressure.

People just don’t want to admit the severity of the accident releases and they’re in control of the academic journals, which makes it difficult to publish.

Maggie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates: We know one lead scientist who did an amazing study and submitted it to five journals and finally one of the five journals took it… Four journals all received incredible pressure to not publish that work. All of them have board member from the nuclear industry.

Published: July 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
57 comments

Related Posts

  1. Researchers having ‘extraordinarily difficult time’ getting Fukushima articles published due to nuclear industry pressure (AUDIO) June 10, 2012
  2. Gundersen: “We know scientific journals have stopped publication of some of the data” about contamination from Fukushima disaster — A lot of resistance to releasing this information (VIDEO) September 24, 2012
  3. Fukushima Daini Unit 1 had pressure increase after quake, before tsunami — Gundersen: “They should also talk about just how damaged Fukushima Daiichi 5 and 6 are but we’re not hearing that either” (VIDEO) December 10, 2012
  4. “It’s Madness”: Doctors in Japan helping perpetuate Fukushima cover-up — Patients not being told their illnesses are from exposure to radioactive contamination — Scientific reports showing radiation health damage to humans are forbidden to be published (AUDIO) October 14, 2013
  5. Incredibly contaminated house dust nearly 100 miles from Fukushima Daiichi — Gundersen: We’re getting a lot of Japanese sending us their vacuum bags (VIDEO) July 8, 2012

57 comments to I’m being approached all the time by scientist having great difficulty getting their Fukushima Daiichi-related reports published because of industrial pressure -Gundersen (VIDEO)

  • ML

    A terrible culture of repression of anything but pro-nuclear has sprung up since the 1970s, at least, sponsored by big governments. There is no money for honest research. So we are left with huge gaps in our understanding of what are the effects of low-dose radiation. If you want to publish a paper of no effect, or potential beneficial effect, then no problem, it will get published, and you might even earn presidential recognition. This repressed culture is the major source of the problem we are facing now. It is grounded in dishonesty.


    Report comment

  • flatsville

    >>>…but I’m being approached all the time by scientist who are having great difficulty getting their reports published because of industrial pressure…<<<

    I take it these are Japanese scientists?

    Is self-publishing on the internet unknown in Japan?


    Report comment

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      I think publishing in scientific journals is important for gaining credibility among scientists.


      Report comment

      • flatsville

        Yes. Agreed. But if you are truly frozen out of academic peer reviewed publications, what choice do you have?

        At lease your work is out there for others to see.


        Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          "At lease your work is out there for others to see."

          i agree with both of you.. preliminary reports should be published straight away for other to view and that would help the peer group review.. kinda makes sense?? maybe?


          Report comment

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          So we should not put down some sites as not credible, as was recently done with rense. Rense published the very credible and excellent article by Yoichi Shimatsu.

          Quite possibly he could not find anyone else to publish it. This battle is being fought on many fronts. Judge the information on its merits, not on the reputation of a site.


          Report comment

          • richard richard

            what dharmasyd said. and really, if there is a doubt, research the sources and any contributing material. it's not too hard these days with this interwebbythingy.

            and if still in doubt, blog it somewhere (here) with your concerns/questions. it will either be torn down or escalated fairly quickly the the smart people around these parts.

            bottomline, how can you trust an industry that goes to such lengths to decieve and obfuscate. they're on the wrong foot from the beginning and they know it.

            just rip it all down. keep some nukers for decommisioning purposes, the others can become toilet cleaners.


            Report comment

        • ML

          Where did the push for Evidence Based Medicine come from? If it wasn't the master mind of someone pro-nuclear it certainly plays into the pro-nuclear hands. There won't be an abundance of "evidence" to show that a medical condition is related to radiation effect due to lack of research dollars for this, at least in most countries.
          There is at least one piece of evidence from Germany: http://www.healthcanal.com/cancers/17423-Fingerprint-radiation-exposure-discovered-thyroid-cancer.html
          Hope we see more of this.


          Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          Hi flatsville, am finding ways to work around this entrenched system. Am not wanting to have to go through the process (i.e., jumping through hoops as I see it) to get a Ph.D. just to get some "credibility." There are ways to work around the system, and I'm finding them.

          One useful method is to work with non-profit groups, professional groups, or others doing research in your field. Staying away from industry groups and academia (for the most part) is one way to work around the system. Find a group with the same interests (not motivated by greed, pride, etc., which may be hard to do), and make a joint effort. If people truly have a goal in mind (and not self interest) they'll realize it's not about competition, it's about accomplishing the goal.

          GreenMedInfo.com is one of these groups I've found. Another is Farm to Consumer Foundation. I'm sure there are many others. One just needs to use diligence to find them (to borrow a legal term).


          Report comment

      • WindorSolarPlease

        Hi B&B

        Quote: I think publishing in scientific journals are important for gaining credibility among scientists.

        I agree. If they put their journal on the net without getting published first, they have a chance of their information and credit being taken away. Most of us probably would not understand their journals anyway, they are intense.

        Information has leaked out, some are trying to get the word out, or we would be in the dark also.

        It tells us a lot when there is industrial pressure for their findings not to be published.


        Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Yes, the name of the game in academia and professional journals is "peer review." That's just how things are done and it isn't likely to change soon. Peer review carries great weight.


        Report comment

    • GeoHarvey

      I think it is important for people to understand the distinction between publishing in a peer reviewed journal and anywhere else.
      If you have an article published in a local paper or magazine, it may get you a beer at the local pub, but it does not get you anything at all in the scientific community.
      If you have an article published in the National Geographic or Scientific American, it may spark a little interest on the fringes, but scientists will ask why it was published where it was.
      When I was describing a patent I got to an academic, he asked where I had published. When I said it was published by the US PTO, he said he was referring to peer reviewed publications.
      If you can't get an idea published in a peer reviewed journal, it is meaningless to many important people.
      In the Middle Ages, as the European universities were being formed, the idea of tenure was developed to free academics from the danger of being fired if they published something new the establishment didn't like.
      Now, the tenure system has been stood on end, and the business of publishing has been undermined by people and organizations that use donations to control non-profit groups and other forms of power to corrupt the flow of scientific truth.
      The nuclear power industry is not motivated by science or a desire to bring good things to life. It is motivated by a need for obscene profit. The more obscene, the better.


      Report comment

  • markww markww

    It is a shame people are taught to tell the truth and when they get older they sell their souls,and lie,cheat and steal thinking it is right.

    mark


    Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    some links from the video topics

    Enviro Close-Up #613 "Nukespeak" karl hoffman

    "..Of the books written about nuclear technology through the years, Nukespeak is a classic. A new 30th anniversary edition of Nukespeak has just been published and co-author Rory O'Connor speaks about it. The new edition of Nukespeak has been updated — with four new chapters — and added to its title is: The Selling of Nuclear Technology from the Manhattan Project to Fukushima. It tells how nuclear promoters have been — and continue — using Orwellian language to try to hide the truth about the deadly dangers of nuclear technology…"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpTUrUHMf2U

    FRI APR 03, 2009 AT 09:04 AM PDT
    Startling revelations on Three Mile Island & nuclear power

    dr wing here

    "…"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."

    Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants…"

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/03/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Island-nuclear-power


    Report comment

    • desara3

      Great article on TMI. I plan on reading the books.

      I was a teenager when TMI happened. It scared me, but not my family. The first nightly news reports were quite scary.

      When they said there was nothing to worry about, NO ONE WORRIED.
      Then, Chernobyl. CONTAINED, nothing to worry about. No one can live there anymore, though. Contained!

      We have gotten smarter. If there is no threat, why do they have to go in wearing lead suits and respirators. Why only 1 minute at a time. Why did they evacuate? No immediate danger. Most people in the world believe it has been over for a year.

      DUCK AND COVER PEOPLE!


      Report comment

    • chrisk9

      The Thompsom/Daily Kos article bothers me greatly for multiple reasons. There are so many incorrect and misleading statements that I personally know about that are wrong, it ruins any truth telling within the entire story. I have met and worked with the Thompson's, and Charles Bussey. I will state a few inaccuracies:

      The Thompson were only minor employees and had very little first hand knowledge of the big picture and important facts.

      Health Physics technicians who were permanent employees at TMI did not leave en mass after the accident.

      Mr Bussey was not killed because of some kind of plot.

      If there were people outside the plant suffering from acute radiation sickness and suffering burns from such exposure those working at the plant would have been falling over dead.

      If there was unreported beta radiation 10,000 times greater than reported then surface contamination inside and outside the plant would have been a huge and obvious reality. Not something that could be hidden.

      I could go on and on about problems about this story. When people seek some sort of fame with outrageous claims it contaminates any real truth, and makes any it easy for the nuclear industry to attack is as goonie birds who know nothing.


      Report comment

  • I find it interesting that there is a lot more good research being done on the effects of chemicals than there is on ionizing radiation.

    I've noted that there is likely to be a relationshiop between exposure to ionizing radiation and point and de novo mutations recently found in children with autism.

    Moreover, certain NK cells found to be deficient in some people with autism are particularly susceptible to ionizing radiation.

    Finally, mitochondrial DNA has been found to be particularly susceptible to ionizing radiation and mitochondrial problems have been found in a subset of people with autism.

    I emailed a few scientists studying chemicals and autism and they all said "interesting" but their research is chemical, not radiological.

    Perhaps research on autism and radiation would be marginalized as non-paradigmatic if submitted for peer review.

    Perhaps the researcher would never again receive NIH or NIMH funding…

    Careers are at stake and so ionizing radiation is largely ignored.

    I'm a "social scientist" so my suggestions don't have much impact…


    Report comment

  • desara3

    Two of my children have been suspected of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

    This was told to me by their Guidance Counseler. School tests say No, no special ed. Doctor says they are fine. I did not go any further on that evaluation. I knew something was out of the ordinary.
    Both parents were born during weapons testing, if that would have a bearing. It was also during the weapons testing, that my sister(born with terminal kidney disease) and my brother(now has terminal bile duct cancer) were born. I have problems and will not ever personally, go to a MD.
    Plus I love sushi and I crave it everyday. My Bad!


    Report comment

    • Don't eat sushi!

      I hope your kids are leading happy lives.

      People on the spectrum have it more difficult than the rest of us, although they can be extraordinarily successful professionally…

      My son with Asperger's is brilliant, despite being socially clueless at times…


      Report comment

      • desara3

        We have always ate fish unfortunately, after seeing the 2001 report.Especially since the data has just become available in 2012.(from previous post)

        Even when I was pregnant I ate alot of fish and liver. Doctor said it was good for me. Nothing is safe to eat and that is a shame. Just grow your own food from now on , I guess. Can it in jars for the winter. Thats what grandma used to do.


        Report comment

    • bleep_hits_blades

      Re autism, most here probably have read that its increasing rate could be related to the mercury in childhood inoculations. The schedule of 'shots' for infants & children just keeps on getting longer and longer; the preservative used in them is mercury; mercury is a neurotoxin. So kids are being dosed with more and more mercury. Also the injections themselves are 1.) probably not healthy, and 2.)who knows what is actually in them?

      Do we really trust these guys anymore? They're from the govt., the AMA, etc. – and they're here to help?

      And 3.) there are those who argue that the 'shots' actually do no good and that the decline in the various childhood diseases was actually the result of other things like improved hygiene.

      What we know for sure that these childhood 'shots' do is — make more money for Big Pharma.


      Report comment

      • WildTurnip WildTurnip

        Yes, tptb would like to have many things linking to the cause of autism – so that big pharma can keep injecting their poisons in our children. Part of the depopulation agenda.


        Report comment

      • richard richard

        @bleep_hits_blades – yes, don't trust the flokkers.

        as you say, who knows what's in the doses, and frankly, the guberment will never tell you the truth.

        big pharm will never tell you the truth.

        the media will never tell you the truth.

        the whole game is over. time to start rewriting the rule book.

        flora and fauna at the top, people next, corps and guberment at the very, very bottom.

        mafia and yakuza – off planet seems about right.


        Report comment

      • desara3

        You have to prove your child has had their shots or they cannot go to the 6th grade in this state.
        All or nothing and you go to jail, unless you home school.


        Report comment

    • arclight arclight

      hi desara

      having adhd, i have no problem with the autistic spectrum.. :)

      in fact its a blessing for some.. most of the problems come from others who find it hard to deal with the different personality issues..

      my favourite artist has is in the autistic spectrum..

      http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/

      he works on art projects with children.. my youngest daughter (adhd) went to one of his workshops and she was amazed!

      we just gotta learn tolerance and as a society encourage the special talents that all these "different" psychologies have imo..

      in fact i have learnt to luv my "disability" and even make use of it..

      peace light and love to you and your special children.. they are not alone!
      :)


      Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    The subcommittee consists of 25 members, of whom only about eight favor abandoning nuclear energy.

    Is this not odd for a group that is supposed to be discussing ways to steer Japan from nuclear power generation?

    The Prometheus Trap/ Tug of war over future of nuclear energy, The Asahi Shimbun. KIYOSHI OKONOGI 29 June 12,

    "…..The Fundamental Issues Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, which advises the minister of economy, trade and industry, was in session on April 11 at the ministry building in Tokyo's Kasumigaseki district. The task of this subcommittee was to discuss the policy of the administration of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to wean the nation off nuclear power generation. .."

    "..Subcommittee members who are opposed to nuclear power generation
    include academics and those who represent consumers. They argue that
    Japan will have zero need for nuclear energy in 2030 if power-saving
    efforts are stepped up and renewable energy such as solar power and
    wind power are utilized more extensively.

    But this argument is vehemently opposed by pro-nuke members of the
    subcommittee, who consist mainly of retired government bureaucrats and
    individuals representing the business community. Many insist on
    relying on nuclear energy for 20 to 35 percent of the nation’s power
    supply, claiming that not to do so will result in higher electricity
    charges, which in turn will debilitate the economy…"

    cont


    Report comment

  • GeoHarvey

    There is an underlying message here that we should not miss, and never forget.
    The nuclear industry is willing to go out of its way to prevent science opposing it from being published. What does that say?
    What it says to me is that they know that they will not win on a level playing field.
    They have to get their government support, but they have to get it in forms that leave them free to say they don't take money from the government, including such things as dealing with waste and Price-Anderson, which no other industry gets.
    But here we see they cannot even allow science to be published. They know that if the scientific community saw how bad things are, they would lose what support they get there.
    The interesting thing is that what it means is that the industry is a special case of a financial bubble. They will collapse as surely as apples fall from the tree.
    Wind is less expensive and takes a fraction of the time to bring online. Hydro is less expensive and takes less time to bring online. Geothermal is less expensive and takes less time to bring online. Biomass is less expensive and takes less time to bring online. And now, SOLAR is less expensive and takes less time to bring online. And every single one of them has a smaller carbon footprint.


    Report comment

    • GeoHarvey

      So the nuclear industry is left trying to convince us that we need them as "baseload" power.
      The US Midwest has enough wind resource to power the globe eight times over. That is just wind, and just the Midwest. Point that out to the nucleists, and they will say "Yes, but it's not baseload."
      When the first nuclear plants were planned, they were all 35 to 50 miles from cities, because they had to be far enough for safety, and close enough not to lose power to transmission line loss. By 1980, the DOE was saying losses had been reduced to 8.9% per 1000 miles, so it was cost effective to transmit AC 2500 miles and DC 4000. Now, transmission line loss has been reduced to 6.5% for standard tech, and 2.5 for new tech.
      You can generate power anywhere in North America, and deliver it anywhere in North America.
      They like to point out that a wind generator only runs about a third of the time.
      But how much of the time is the wind calm everywhere in the continent? Or even just the Midwest?
      The nuclear industry is going down hard, and soon. There is nothing they can do now to stop it.
      All I hope is that they don't take the rest of us with them.


      Report comment

      • GeoHarvey

        They will take us down if they can.
        They don't know it, because they REFUSE to look at the science.
        If there ever was an evil religion, devoid of reason and based on depraved greed, it is the nuclearist's.


        Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.